Kieffer v. Planet Fitness of Adrian, LLC d/b/a Planet Fitness of Adrian et al
Filing
57
OPINION and ORDER Granting Defendant's 54 Motion to Enlarge Time to file Dispositive Motions. (Dispositive Motion Cut-off set for 4/12/2019) Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (SBur)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Cary Kieffer,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-cv-11307
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Planet Fitness of Adrian, LLC
d/b/a Planet Fitness of Adrian, a
Mag. Judge Stephanie Dawkins
domestic limited liability company, Davis
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
ENLARGE TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS [54]
Defendant Planet Fitness of Adrian seeks an enlargement of time
to file a dispositive motion. (Dkt. 54.) The stipulated scheduling order has
a dispositive motion deadline of February 15, 2019. (Dkt. 51 at 3.)
Plaintiff Cary Kieffer’s responses to the most recent set of interrogatories
and production requests were due February 10, 2019 (Dkt. 54 at 14; Dkt.
56 at 2), but plaintiff did not respond until February 20, 2019. (Dkt. 54
at 12; Dkt. 56 at 2.) Three depositions were also scheduled to take place
before February 10, 2019, but plaintiff adjourned them. (Dkt. 54 at 12;
Dkt. 56 at 2.) On March 4, 2019, defendant filed a motion to enlarge the
time to file dispositive motions to March 30, 2019 (Dkt. 54), which
plaintiff opposes. (Dkt. 56.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 states that a scheduling order
“may be modified only for good cause and the judge’s consent.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The primary measure of Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard
is the moving party’s diligence in attempting to meet the case
management order’s requirements.” Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d
613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Whether the opposing party will suffer significant prejudice is also an
important consideration. See Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906–07
(6th Cir. 2003). In Andretti v. Borla Performance Industries, Inc., good
cause existed where the plaintiff did not “complete his compelled
responses to [defendant’s] discovery requests until after the scheduled
dispositive motion deadline” and the modification was affirmed because
the plaintiff also made no showing of prejudice. 426 F.3d 824, 830 (6th
Cir. 2005). Consent to modify a scheduling order is left to the sound
discretion of the district judge. See Leary, 329 F.3d at 905–06.
2
Despite plaintiff’s opposition, defendant satisfies good cause and
the Court will modify the schedule. Defendant raises two arguments
showing good cause: first, plaintiff did not respond to interrogatories and
requests for discovery production until after the dispositive motion
deadline, and second, plaintiff adjourned three depositions scheduled to
take place before the dispositive motion deadline. (Dkt. 54 at 13.) Plaintiff
does not dispute this. (Dkt. 56 at 4.) Plaintiff makes no showing of
prejudice it would suffer were the scheduled modified. (See Dkt. 56.) As
in Andretti, plaintiff did not respond in a timely manner to discovery
before the dispositive motion deadline and failed to show prejudice.
Furthermore, there is additional good cause, the depositions that
plaintiff adjourned, which also counsels in favor of granting the motion
to modify the schedule.
Plaintiff responds that neither his late responses to the
interrogatories and production requests nor the adjourned depositions
form a basis for a dispositive motion because defendant already had the
documents requested or was aware of the documents and could have
subpoenaed them. (Dkt. 56 at 2–3.) Plaintiff also asserts that he
3
adjourned the depositions to save costs before the settlement conference
on March 1, 2019. (Id. at 3.)
These arguments are unpersuasive. First, it is reasonable that
defendant was depending on a lack of new information as much as new
information from plaintiff’s responses and the adjourned depositions to
determine whether it would file a dispositive motion. Moreover, were the
Court to accept this argument, parties could evade the scheduling order
and dictate whether the opposing party needs the discovery materials to
file a dispositive motion. Second, plaintiff’s argument that he sought to
cut costs by adjourning the depositions has no bearing on whether
defendant has good cause to support this modification or whether
plaintiff would suffer prejudice were the Court to grant the modification.
Accordingly, defendant’s motion (Dkt. 54) is GRANTED. Parties
must file dispositive motions on or before April 12, 2019. All other dates
in this case remain unaffected.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 26, 2019
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?